Romanczuk on What is the School Leader’s Role

            “Communication is a minefield.” - Jeff Romanczuk

Summary

            In trying to keep and information flow and support balance, and based on my own commitment to special education and servant leadership, I have little problem with driving all around the county trying to give the teachers the support they need when and where they need it. This subtle leadership works for me now as special education (SpEd) administrative support person, but I’m not sure how well servant leadership will go over for me as SpEd Director or (God forbid) principal. In these leadership positions, the pressures from all sides (parents, students, teachers, and the central office), tend to eat up any leader who thinks of himself as a servant first. Servant leadership also makes being the group’s change mentor a tough sell, especially for someone who isn’t the Great Communicator.

 

What are some of the key roles of an educational leader?

            The three keys for me:  knowledge, passion, and communication.

 

Knowledge

 

            The leader has to actually contribute something that no one else in the group can or will. Fullan (2001) makes a point common to the data-information-knowledge discussion:  “Information is machines. Knowledge is people,” (p. 78). Since knowledge itself isn’t always tangible, experience is often an acceptable substitute. Those who work for you have to know what jobs you’ve been through to get where you are now and (more importantly) that you understand their work and appreciate what is hard about it.

 

Passion

 

            No matter what the leader knows, he or she won’t be able to incite or inspire others to action without a clear and consistent passion for the work ahead. Passion has to be the foundation for the power and responsibility inherent in any leadership role. Passion isn’t power, of course, but the second half of the following quote is hinting at passion as much as power. “Power is the ability to get things done. . .the latent ability to influence people” (Allen & Porter, as cited in Shafritz & Ott, 2001, p. 299).

 

            Max De Pree (1989), in Leadership is an Art, says that the leader defines reality. Bennis (as cited in Drath & Palus, 1994) makes a similar point that a leader creates meaning through vision and trust. Ralph Waldo Emerson (1929) held that we all have a skill to offer, a chance to lead, and obligation to each other to do so (“be something of worth and value,” p. 709). His point is twofold:  contribute to society in your own way and trust that God has a plan for you. Find it and follow it.

 

Communication

 

            My minefield quote above stems from an extremely difficult time in my leadership journey. As Training Project Manager for Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education’s (ORISE’s) Albuquerque office, I was geographically separated from my leadership support base (my boss and the HR department back in Oak Ridge). I had only my ORISE support staff and the seven of us were co-located with our Department of Energy clients. The ORISE staff in New Mexico had come to view themselves as working directly for their DOE managers and saw the ORISE manager role as unnecessary (though they never overtly said so). It was an impossible position to be in and I was widely viewed as ineffective and the wrong person for the job. Never mind that any mortal would have been the wrong one for the job. As a communicator I was highly ineffective because most of what I said was viewed with suspicion and most of what I wrote was overanalyzed for meanings beyond my intent. I came to feel like I had to start watching everything I said and wrote. Although I saw what I needed to change, it would have taken more time and personnel changes than ORISE or DOE were willing to give it for me to reverse the damage.

 

            I fancy myself a “subtle” leader, Omar Bradley instead of George Patton. The main trouble for the subtle leader, though, is communicating regularly and clearly. The subtle leader knows “leadership is a relationship” (Kouzes & Posner, 2002, p. 20). Leadership development is not individual-, but community-based and participative (Drath & Palus, 1994). Horowitz (1997) notes that a successful leader’s primary ability is communicating well. As with any good leader, the subtle leader uses communication to motivate, but he also talks less and favors listening and analyzing more than most leaders do. As Drath and Palus (1994) pose it, the leader’s quandary should not be so much “How can I take charge. . .?  How can I influence these people” (p. 1) as it should be, “What is the most effective process of leadership for this group [and] [h]ow can I. . .participate productively in this process of leadership?” (p. 2). Subtle leaders are more inclined than the showman leaders are to encourage, or at least not stifle, “contrary opinions” (De Pree, 1989, p. 14).

 

            Fullan (2001) puts relationships right behind moral purpose in how vital both are to leaders. No matter what the business is, it is done by people interacting. In his chapter titled “Relationships, Relationships, Relationships,” Fullan decides to do something because it isn’t done enough:  discuss “businesses as if they had souls and hearts” and “schools as if they had minds” (p. 51). Part of his point in giving the San Diego district students’ reading score progress is to show that the leaders currently in place know what needs doing. Breaking through the inertia and bureaucracy to get it done is what they often need help with.

 

Balance

 

            Communication tends to be the toughest hurdle on my leadership development steeplechase. I don’t ever try to conceal the fact that my teaching experience doesn’t cover twenty years (as it does for most teachers my age). However, I tend to get more credit than I probably deserve in the Special Education realm for being the parent of two children with classic autism. Another bad side of the SpEd parent angle is that my passion for education tends not to extend to general education. I am committed to preK to 12 education in general, but the further my involvement strays from SpEd, the less passionate I am about going down that road. Bigger than my SpEd bias, though, is the difficulties I have in communicating. I have always preferred writing and project planning to talking and project execution. I’m better about getting out of the office and seeing things through now than I used to be, but giving interpersonal interactions the attention they merit remains a big effort for me.

                       

How does the educational leader influence the purpose of education (or vice versa)?

 

            The educational leader as mentor is one way to extend one professional’s influence on the purposes of education and a way to fulfill an individual’s obligation to the profession. Out of necessity, new teachers have been coming to veterans of the classroom with issues and questions long before mentoring put a formal structure on the process. Those new teachers who thrive become mentors for the young teachers starting a few years later. Tillman’s article (2000) highlights this mentoring relationship. Such mentoring is subtle leadership because it is both voluntary and informally created from a structure already in place. Designated mentoring has only given the informal process more formality and the mentoring teacher an opportunity to demonstrate subtle leadership. Even so, Tillman remarks that both sides enter the relationship willingly and when it works best, it gradually shifts to a collegiality of equals over the years. 

 

What role do values play in educational leadership?

 

            In one of the Leadership class lectures we were discussing what any school’s common values tend to be. Individual worth and the right to learn came up early. Respecting the dignity of the learner followed. The concept of life-long learning and the belief that all students can learn rounded out the discussion. In the “Modeling the Way” section of Leadership Challenge Kouzes and Posner (2002) opine that it is important that the leader be cognizant of his own values prioritization because a value is “an enduring belief” (Rokeach, as cited in Kouzes & Posner, p. 48). Values influence every aspect of our judgments, responses, and commitments. They impact every decision big or small. More importantly, we tend not to act on options that run counter to our values (Kouzes & Posner).

 

            Fullan (2001) puts forth the need for retaining a moral purpose as a way of grounding how we behave as leaders. If we keep in mind that our point as educators is to “make a difference in the lives of students” (p. 13), we can’t help but work toward not only treating the students fairly, but dealing fairly with teachers as well. Foster (1986) opens his chapter titled “Leadership” by observing that in Educational Administration leadership involves “presentation of values and images of the proper way” (p. 169). Harkening back to the higher purpose that Emerson (1929 [1841]) wrote of, Handy (1998) bemoans society’s trend toward appeasing the lesser hunger (for stuff) and ignoring the greater hunger (for a meaningful life). Although it is more than a little disingenuous of me to claim I want to be this kind of transformational leader when I’m not even an adequate transactional leader (Owens, 2001), it surprises me how often I am the one trying to get people to distinguish what matters and lasts from what doesn’t. 

 

            Heifetz (1994) observes that leadership involves moral code; managing doesn’t. Foster (1986) makes the distinction that leadership is concerned with the critical decisions whereas management concerns only the routine ones. Leadership is a social contract, more value laden than value free, encompassing cultural assumptions and the moral authority (rather than legitimate authority) to lead. Heifetz offers as examples King, Gandhi, Sanger, and Havel. In Havel’s case, though, his moral authority as a well-known poet led to legitimate authority. Colby and Damon (1992) describe the moral commitment of leadership as action based, teaching followers how to be by being that way as a leader.

 

What is my particular leadership style and how does it relate to how I believe schools should be organized?

 

            Servant leadership and subtle leadership describe my style. Even in Albuquerque the DOE clients called me a “working” Project Manager. It wasn’t a complete compliment or insult. ORISE may have needed a manager in place, but the DOE Operations Office didn’t (or believed it didn’t, at least). So I became just another worker bee, my knowledge of computer software saving my job from being a total loss.

 

            Kuck (1997) summarizes his servant-leadership article by saying that “an effective leader quietly, consistently, lovingly works long hours behind the scenes to make the school the best it can be” (p. 45). Although it feels counterintuitive to think of the leader working behind the scenes, one of Kuck’s points is that the work no one witnesses is what makes the visible tasks seem easy and effortless (to disinterested observers, at least!). Kuck’s article is largely an exposition of how Bogue’s Enemies of Leadership (which I haven’t read yet) dovetails with the tenants of servant leadership. The “working behind the scenes” comment is rendered during Kuck’s discussion of Bogue’s call for a “sensitive use of authority” (Kuck, p. 45). Such a use involves the leader’s serving and inspiring rather than seeking to be served. A related trait of subtle leaders that Bogue (as cited in Kuck) attributes to servant leaders is curbing the ego. Another related trait of subtle leaders that is even more useful and used is the capacity to absorb hostility without exacting revenge.

 

            Subtle leaders also know when to look outside their group. Kouzes and Posner (2002) acknowledge that fresh ideas are often external, so “outsight” can be as important and insight (p. 192), though much more difficult to get at. Analysis is usually internal. Covey (1990) admits as much in stating that his four levels of principle-centered leadership—personal, interpersonal, managerial, and organizational—are “practiced from the inside out” (p. 31).

 

            Although he doesn’t call it this, Burns (1978) describes micromanagement  when railing against the “naked power wielding” (p. 19) that results in the do-what-I-want-you-to-do-when-I-want-you-to-do- it mentality that denies the followers’ part in the needs and goals being worked. In other words, power wielding managers can treat people as things; leaders can’t. In a similar vein, Mary Parker Follett (1996 [1926?]) notes that the “test of a foreman now is not how good he is at bossing, but how little bossing he has to do” (p. 166).

 

            In another of the readings we had for the Leadership seminar, it troubled me that Wills (1994) dismissed Simeon the Stylite (p. 15). Stylite monks were “pillar dwellers,” literally living atop a pole for in indeterminate amount of time, constantly meditating and praying. The prerequisites for even becoming a stylite were strict and abbots of monasteries didn’t just let any monk who asked go off and do this kind of intense prayer. Simeon started his pillar dwelling while still a child. As Wills story hints at, in Simeon’s case many came to the base of his pole petitioning for prayers and asking advice. He is one of the few saints to whom miracles are attributed before his death. Although torture and privation are good practice for leadership (just kidding), Wills missed that humility, focus, and obedience were the points of Simeon’s story, not his power or influence. However, Wills closing point that we lack followers, not leaders is sound. Although we are each good at something, if everyone is trying to be a leader in all things all the time, no one is leading. Wills disdains servicing rather than leading, yet he comes off as more supportive of servant leadership than he probably would admit to being.

 

How do I know when an educational leader is effective in their position?

           

            Unfortunately, it is easier to tell when the school leadership is ineffective, but “effective” is the better question. Norris, Barnett, Basom, and Yerkes (2002) emphasize empowerment, quality learning, and thinking/knowledge acquisition over standards based Educational Administration. The Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium tends to fret too much about isolated components of principalship and school leadership and doesn’t worry enough about the problem of how much classroom to workplace transfer is taking place in colleges’ educational administration programs.

 

            According to Heifetz (1994), the purpose of leadership is to help the community face its problems and live up to its responsibilities, not propose a “follow me” vision (p. 14). In other words, as Dr. Bogue (class lecture notes, 2003) put it:  asking the right questions is more important for school leaders than supplying the answers. In his discussion of the five levels of leadership, with the fifth being the most effective, Collins (2001) notes that level 5 leaders are humble but not weak. They can make the hard, lonely decisions. (Dropping a long held function or fighting off a take over bid are two examples Collins supplies.)

 

What does the leader’s role have to do with organizational theory and organizational change?

           

            Kearns (as cited in Darling-Hammond, 1997) makes the point that we need to restructure, not merely tinker with educational reform. Piecemeal changes and reforms that were more well-intentioned than thorough have gotten K-12 education to its present state. Fullan (2001) observes that change flares emotions and leadership tempers them. A fast pace is both exhilarating and agonizing, so the leader needs to keep those led focused. In Fullan’s chapter on understanding change, I was almost fooled at first by his use of three cookbook-type lists of how a leader should manage change. The third, specifically (Hamel, 2000, as cited in Fullan) comes off as more than a little militant and overly dominant (“Co-opt and neutralize”, “Win small, win early, win often,” p. 33). I started to think, “Come on, now, Michael. Why are you so widely cited?”  Then Fullan finally states that such advice is often contradictory and doesn’t help a leader know what to actually do anyway. Those he cited reminded me of my Squadron Office School days from the U. S. Air Force, where they told us (mostly new captains) that we were there to learn how to “manage violence and control the air.”  Fullan at least admits that change cannot be managed, but that organizations can be led through it.

 

            A leader’s primary role is to help the organization not only adjust to change, but embrace it (Creasey, 2002). This is problematic for subtle leaders because most people tend to resist change and push back. An arrogant leader is at an advantage here (in the short-term, anyway) because the subtle leader takes an emotional beating in his push-pull battles as change agent. As Kuck (1997) puts it, they more often look like “sorrowful servants” than “stately leaders” (p. 44). Alinsky (1971) reminds us that consistency isn’t a virtue in a changing political landscape. In his essay “Self Reliance,” Emerson (1929) much earlier [1841] made a similar observation that “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds” (p. ?).

 

            Gardner (1990) defines leadership as the process of persuasion of one on a group (p. 1) and cautions that power isn’t enough without “leadership gifts” (p. 2), one of which is having the broad, long view rather than the specific, short look. “Gift” is such a precise word for it; it’s perfect.

 

            Bogue (2000) emphasizes the value of expecting much of those in your charge. He describes these high expectations as the power of the leader’s latent or expressed expectations, and reminds us that we don’t do a person any good by expecting little of them.

 

Discussion of my leadership metaphor:

           

            Communication is everything from a minefield to a lifeline for leaders. Quiet leaders (Badaracco, 2002) see leadership as complex, subtle, fragile. They are realists, not pessimists, optimists, or cynics. This doesn’t contradict Bogue’s (2000) advice to take people as they ought to be, not as they are. Especially from the SpEd perspective in which observable measurable gains often come even slower than they do in general education, taking the students from where they are to where they ought to be requires a leadership that mixes coaching and compassion, patience and persistence.

 

            Kouzes and Posner (2002) believe all of us can and do lead and, more importantly, can learn to do so better. The authors describe this leadership challenge as “how traditional systems of rewards and punishments, control and scrutiny, give way to innovation, individual character, and the courage of convictions” (p. xxiii). They see the leader’s role as one of challenging the processes: always promoting innovation, change, and teamwork.

           

References

 

Alinsky, S. (1971). Rules for radicals. New York, NY:  Vintage Books.

 

Badaracco, J. L., Jr. (2002). Leading quietly:  An unorthodox guide to doing the right thing. Boston:  Harvard Business School.

Barton, M. D. (2003). School spirit. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 69(2), 5-10.

Blase, J. R. & Blase, J. (1999). Effective instructional leadership through the teacher’s eyes. High School Magazine, 7(1), 16-20.

 

Bogue, E. G. (2000). The power of leadership philosophy in Readings on leadership in education. Bloomington, IN:  Phi Delta Kappan.

 

Bolman, L. G. & Deal, T. E. (1995). Leading with soul:  An uncommon journey of the spirit. San Francisco:  Jossey Bass.

 

Bolman, L. G. & Deal, T. D. (1997). Reframing organizations:  Artistry, choice, and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA:  Jossey-Bass.

 

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY:  Harper and Row Publishers.

 

Burrows, L., Munday, R., & Tunnell, J. W. (1996). Leadership substitutes:  Their effects on teacher organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 23, 3-8.

 

Callahan, J. C. (Ed.). (1998). Ethical issues in professional life. New York:  Oxford University Press.

 

Colby, A. & Damon, W. (1992). Some do care. New York, NY:  The Free Press.

 

Collins, J. (2001). Good to great:  Why some companies make the leap. . .and others don’t. New York:  Harper Business.

Covey, S. R. (1990). Principle-centered leadership. New York:  Summit Books.

Covey, S. R. (1989). The 7 habits of highly effective people. New York, NY:  Fireside.

 

Creasey, E. (2002). An exploration of educational change and a leadership framework for change. Unpublished masters thesis, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

 

Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn:  A blueprint for creating schools that work. San Francisco, CA:  Jossey-Bass.

 

Davis, S. H. (1998). Taking aim at effective leadership. Thrust for Educational Leadership, 28(2), 6-9.

 

Depree, M. (1989). Leadership is an art. New York:  Doubleday.

 

Drath, W. H., & Palus, C. J. (1994). Making common sense:  Leadership as meaning-making in a community of practice. Greensboro:  Center for Creative Leadership.

 

Emerson, R. W. (1929). The complete works of Ralph Waldo Emerson. New York:  Morrow.

 

Fiore, D. (2000). Principal visibility:  The key to effective leadership. Schools in the Middle, 9(9), 32-34.

 

Follett, M. P. (1996). Mary Parker Follett:  Prophet of management (Pauline Graham, Ed.). Boston:  Harvard Business School Press.

 

Foster, W. (1986). Paradigms and promises:  New approaches to educational administration. Amherst, NY:  Prometheus Books.

 

Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco:  Jossey Bass.

 

Gardner, J. (1990). On leadership. New York, NY:  The Free Press.

 

Giroux, H. (1983). Theories of reproduction and resistance in the new sociology of education:  A critical analysis. Harvard Educational Review, 53(3), August, 257-293.

 

Goertz, J. (2000). Creativity:  An essential component for effective leadership in today’s schools. Roeper Review, 22(3), 158-162.

 

Greenleaf, R. (1991). The servant as leader. Indianapolis:  Greenleaf Center.

 

Handy, C. (1998). The hungry spirit. New York, NY:  Broadway Books.

 

Heifetz, R. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Cambridge, MA:  Harvard University Press.

 

Heischman, D. R. (2002). Moral courage in teaching and school leadership. Independent School, 62(1), 22-26, 28, 30-32.

 

Hirsch, Jr. E. D. (1999). The schools we need and why we don’t have them. New York:  Anchor Books.

 

Hodgkinson, C. (1991). Educational leadership:  The moral art. Albany, NY:  State University of New York Press.

 

Horowitz, S. (1997). From vision to victory:  Communication key to effective leadership. Thrust for Educational Leadership, 27, 31.

 

Kanter, R. M. (1979). Power failure in management circuits. In J. M. Shafritz & J. S. Ott (Eds.), Classics of organizational theory (5th ed.) (pp. 343-352). Belmont, CA:  Wadsworth.

 

Kaplan, L. S. (1998). Using the 4mat instructional model for effective  leadership. National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 82(599), 83-92.

 

Kouzes, J. M. & Posner, B. Z. (2002). The leadership challenge (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA:  Jossey-Bass.

 

Kuck, G. (1997). Servant leadership. Lutheran Education, 133, 44-45.

 

Laud, L. E. (1998). Changing the way we communicate. Educational Leadership, 55(7), 23-25.

 

McGuire, K. (2001). Do you have what it takes to be an effective school leader?  Curriculum Review, 41(4), 14-15.

 

Morgan, G. (1997). Images of organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA:  Sage.

 

Murphy, J., & Forsyth, P. B. (1999). Educational administration:  A decade of reform. Thousand Oaks, CA:  Corwin.

 

Noddings, N. (1984). Caring:  A feminine approach to ethics and moral education. Berkeley:  University of California Press.

 

Noddings, N. (2002). Educating moral people:  A caring alternative to character education. New York:  Teachers College Press.

 

Norris, C. J., Barnett, B. G., Basom, M. R, & Yerkes, D. M. (2002). Developing educational leaders, a working model:  The learning community in action. New York:  Teachers College Press.

 

Owens, R. G. (2001). Organizational behavior in education:  Instructional leadership and school reform (7th ed). Boston, MA:  Allyn and Bacon.

 

Peters, T. (1987). Thriving on chaos:  Handbook for a management revolution. New York, NY:  Harper and Row.

 

Petrie, G., Lindauer, P., & Tountasakis, M. (2000). Self analysis:  A tool to enhance leader effectiveness. Education, 121(2), 355-365.

 

Shafritz, J. M., & Ott, J. S. (2001). Classics of organizational theory (5th ed.). Belmont, CA:  Wadsworth.

 

Tillman, B. A. (2000). Quiet leadership:  Informal mentoring of beginning teachers. Momentum, 31(1), 24-26.

 

Tyack, D. B. (1974). The one best system: A history of american urban education. Cambridge:  Harvard University Press.

 

Wills, G. (1994). Certain trumpets:  The call of leaders. New York, NY:  Simon and Schuster.